Public Attitudes During the Second Lockdown: Sentiment and Topic Analyses Using Tweets From Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to explore topics and sentiments using tweets from Ontario, Canada, during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Tweets were collected from December 5, 2020, to March 6, 2021, excluding non-individual accounts. Dates of vaccine-related events and policy changes were collected from public health units in Ontario. The daily number of COVID-19 cases was retrieved from the Ontario provincial government’s public health database. Latent Dirichlet Allocation was used for unsupervised topic modelling. VADER was used to calculate daily and average sentiment compound scores for topics identified. Results: Vaccine, pandemic, business, lockdown, mask, and Ontario were six topics identified from the unsupervised topic modelling. The average sentiment compound score for each topic appeared to be slightly positive, yet the daily sentiment compound scores varied greatly between positive and negative emotions for each topic. Conclusion: Our study results have shown a slightly positive sentiment on average during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, along with six topics. Our research has also demonstrated a social listening approach to identify what the public sentiments and opinions are in a timely manner.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".